Constitutional Court Confirms Teachers Cannot Be MBG Supervisors
The Constitutional Court (MK) has ruled that petition Number 301/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by Herifuddin Daulay regarding the involvement of teachers as supervisors in the free nutritious meal (MBG) programme, is inadmissible. The court also ruled that petition Number 290/PUU-XXIV/2026, concerning a judicial review of the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), is inadmissible.
“The ruling: petitions Number 290/PUU-XXIV/2026 and Number 301/PUU-XXIV/2026 are inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the verdict hearing in the main courtroom of Building I of the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Monday.
Petition Number 301/PUU-XXIV/2026 challenged Law Number 17 of 2025 on the 2026 State Budget, filed by Herifuddin Daulay, who requested that teachers be involved in the national nutrition fulfilment programme, which would require an additional budget for supervision of the programme.
Regarding the judicial review of the MBG budget, in the court’s considerations read by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, he explained that the norms sought to be ruled upon in petitum point 1 — Article 22 paragraph (3), the Elucidation of Article 22 paragraph (3), and Appendix number 1, Appendix 1 number 2.75.2 of Law Number 17 of 2025 — do not accord with the full elucidation of a previous Constitutional Court ruling.
Concerning the review of the Elucidation of Article 22 paragraph (3) of the State Budget Law, the court had already issued ruling Number 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, which fundamentally altered the substance of the Elucidation of Article 22 paragraph (3) of the State Budget Law.
“So the request to review again the elucidation in question does not accord with the full elucidation of the court’s ruling, where the substance sought to be reviewed is not as already decided by the Constitutional Court,” said Saldi.
He added that in the posita section, the petitioner did not set out clearly, adequately and specifically the contradiction between the norms under review and the grounds for review used.
The petitioner largely provided accounts of the type of curriculum, the cognitive academic burden of the curriculum, essential brain nutrition, technical problems with MBG, the absence of teacher involvement in MBG supervision, and calculations of the cost of teacher supervision in MBG.
According to the court, these accounts did not demonstrate clarity regarding their connection and relevance to the constitutional problem of the norms being challenged by the petitioner.
Meanwhile, the considerations for the review of the KUHAP, which questioned whether a corporate person-in-charge could be held responsible in criminal cases involving corporations, were judged by the court not to set out clearly and adequately the contradiction between the norms being challenged.
Petitioner Andri Yanto challenged Article 326 paragraph (1) of the new KUHAP against the articles used as grounds for the review, namely Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
The court stated that the formulation of the petitioner’s petitum did not provide clear boundaries regarding the construction of the norms actually being requested. Moreover, petitum point 5 actually created uncertainty about the normative grounds the petitioner genuinely used to request a change in the interpretation of the word “and” to the phrase “and/or” in Article 326 paragraph (1) of the new KUHAP and Article 49 of Law Number 1 of 2026.